Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday December 21, 2009 @08:22PM
from the you've-been-bung dept.

shrugger writes "I picked up my BlackBerry this morning to do a search and noticed Bing as my default search engine. I thought this was very strange, since I didn't pick this setting. I went to change it back to Google and, to my chagrin, Bing was my only option! Apparently Verizon has pushed an update that removes all search providers except Bing. Thanks a lot Verizon!" The Reg notes: "The move is part of the five-year search and advertising deal Verizon signed with Microsoft in January for a rumored $500m."

Shouldn't this fall under changing the contract? You are now locked into using Bing as your search provider, which is a restriction that was not present when you originally signed the contract, which means that it has changed. You should be able to terminate ETF-free, although it'll definitely take some fighting to do so if you're the first.

Read your contract. I'm sure that they state that they are allowed to change features (including removing functionality) any any time for any reason and you can't do anything about it. I found that in my last AT&T contract. As long as it dials when you punch numbers, your "phone" contract holds. The data stuff is like an add on that they could remove/block and you are still on the hook for the phone service for the rest of the contract.

Doesn't matter. Contracts can't override the law, regardless of how hard they try to make you think they can. They can say they have the right to change service at any time and that you can't terminate, but that is simply not true.

If the service materially changes, you can terminate the agreement, regardless of how many times they tell you that you can't.

Doesn't matter. Contracts can't override the law, regardless of how hard they try to make you think they can.

Well, the Libertarians will be very upset about that, but suppose you are 100% correct. What's the effect when you sign an "illegal" contract? You get to follow what you like, then if there's something in violation of the law, you don't follow it and tell them why? They won't believe you, and you'll have to fight the contract in court. Otherwise, they'll proceed like the contract is valid and you'll have outstanding debts and marks on your credit report.

By the way, have you ever tried to get a home loan with even silly stuff on your credit report? You'll be there on closing day, they'll say "this whole thing falls through if you don't make out a check for $525 (or whatever) to Verizon and hand it to the escrow agent." Sure, you have the option to not pay Verizon, but then you also will be giving up the home loan, and the house that goes with it. Happened to me with a water bill after I moved and the final bill never made it to me. I probably did owe that money, but never even got a chance to look at the bill and make sure it was correct, and it was pay the bill or not buy the house.

Your only real recourse if someone presents you with an "illegal" contract is to walk away. Anything else and you did sign away that right, and it would take a court order to reinstate it if you aren't allowed to sign it away.

Actually, if they changed it while you are under contract, you can terminate your existing contract with no questions asked (there is a time limit from when you are notified of the contract change). Anytime they change the services or add fees this consumer protection goes into effect. Your state may offer even more protection as well....

Call and complain. Average cost per call, considering overhead, is anywhere from $20-$40 in the call center industry, even more if you have dedicated in-house support.

Prepare a complaint and read it, word for word, to the person you are talking to. Remember you are not talking to the person who made the policy, so refrain from profanity, yelling, and personal insults.

But do take the time, at length, to voice your displeasure. If you're the only one who calls, at least you tried. If a million others also call, they are going to look for what's driving all of these calls and fix it ASAP. Cos no one wants to pay for call center overtime, or ramping up staffing.

The trick is, let someone know you're unhappy and it might change. Keeping quiet guarantees it won't. Example: "Dear abby, I have a problem but I haven't told anyone about it because of some arbitrary reason. Answer: Tell them, simply and directly." It's in the newspaper every day - try it out once.

This is an excellent suggestion, but not quite complete. Do not just complain. Ask for instructions on how to change the setting back to what it was. Under no conditions should you accept that it can not be done. You could change it yesterday, so you must be able to change it today, right? Be nice to the poor guy on the other end of the line. He is not at fault. But, when he says you can't change it kindly say that you believe he does not know how, and then demand to talk to a senior technical person so you can get your phone working again. Stay on the phone as long as possible and talk to as many people as possible.

Calling Verizon costs Verizon money, but it will not force them to change their actions. Calling the FCC forces the agency that regulates Verison to take notice of what Verizon has done. If the FCC doesn't get complaints they are not forced to "notice" the problem. Calling the Senate and the House of representatives makes sure that the people who make the laws that govern Verizon notice that the people who vote for them are not happy with the laws that govern Verizon. Believe it or not, no matter how large a bribe... OK "campaign contribution" your elected officials have been paid by Verizon (each and everyone of them has been bribed by Verizon) they will take action if they think it will affect their ability to stay in office. You see, no matter how much money Verizon can give them, Verizon can not vote for them. And the elected bastards know one thing, if they do not get elected they get no more goodies from Verizon and the rest of the megacorps.

And, Ya'know, if you are just feeling mean, call Microsoft support and ask how to turn off Bing on your phone. It is their product, they should know, right?

The idea is to make this policy change as costly for Verizon as possible. That means you make them pay to handle your calls and you make them pay even more by generating bad feelings toward them in the Senate and the House.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot. If you want to call and leave a comment for at the White House for President Obomo, 202-456-1111 or, if you do not trust me as you should not, you can find the number here http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact [whitehouse.gov]. You can also send an email from there.

Ah, the wonderful sound of thousands of cancelled contracts! Nothing quite like it.

Which won't happen because just about everyone who wanted the iphone or out of Verizon for some other reason has already bailed. The people who are left are there for the coverage or to put it more bluntly, it's the network stupid. They will piss and moan and grumble about it but it will not be enough to get them to switch because they chose Verizon for the network; not because they had the best smartphones. Verizon is doing this because they can and their customers will like it that way. Verizon a bully? who knew....right.

What? But the 'Droid is so AWESOME! It's got all those shiny red lights and mechanical arms and giant bulky keyboard, and it insults the fuck out of other phones! How could you not want to be a part of that???

My initial reaction is just pure anger. I have settings, I like those settings. To have them just overwritten, and to take away my choice of a search provider just reeks to me. BTW - Way to go pushing that Google Android based phone, and then piss off your BB users with a Bing deal.

If I had option of Droid on T-Mobile, I would get one today. The only reason I did not get one is Verizon. I am not willing to sell my soul to either Verizon or AT&T - even if that means not carrying a mobile phone altogether.

There [google.com] you go. It's a Moto Droid with quadband GSM instead of CDMA innards. Put any T-Mobile SIM in there and you're good to go. If you're getting a contract anyways, you may want to get one of their $1 phones and eBay it to get some of those $600 back.

Don't even do that. T-Mobile now has plans specifically designed for people who are bringing their own phones, and don't need the subsidized phone. They're about $10/month cheaper than the plans with the subsidized phone, and no contract.

Maybe because it's decent in suburban areas, because it's significantly cheaper than AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon, because we don't mind roaming, and because T-Mobile is slightly less obviously run by assholes than the other three aforementioned companies?

My initial reaction is just pure anger. I have settings, I like those settings. To have them just overwritten, and to take away my choice of a search provider just reeks to me. BTW - Way to go pushing that Google Android based phone, and then piss off your BB users with a Bing deal.

The law should allow you to cancel your contract with no early termination penalty of any sort anytime the telco unilaterally and irreversibly reduces the phone's configuration like this. This behavior should legally negate any "terms subject to change without notice" clauses. It's a form of bait-and-switch, because when you bought the phone you were able to decide which search service to use and now that decision has been removed without your consent after you signed the contract.

If it only applied to new phones with new contracts, or to existing customers whose contracts are renewing (and thus can be terminated with no penalty) I'd feel differently about it. It's waiting until you are locked into a contract with specific expectations and then reducing (instead of improving) the functionality of the device mid-term that I have a problem with.

I am in the process of getting off of Bell Canada and none too soon. I moved within Calgary, and the area I am in has poor coverage, so the phone drops calls continuously. After calling Bell to complain about the coverage, even though the coverage map says my area of the city is good, they said that I couldn't quit them since I didn't get their permissions to move (huh???), and its my fault the phone works periodically.
Anywho, I asked to get a supervisor and he got me off the rest of the contract and heading over to a new provider (http://www.windmobile.ca/) in the new year, and their rates are fantastic.... just hope they don't treat the customers like crap.

F*ck you Verizon.
You know, I used to manage a 500 phone cell contract at the last company I worked for. I actually liked Verizon then. They had great support and offered decent phones (although it still took them a year to get the RAZR, the hot phone at the time.) We had some great regional sales reps too. Warranties were hassle free and we appreciated that.
I moved jobs three years ago. It came time to consider switching cell providers and I naively assumed Verizon was the same. Sure, they're rates were still about the same, but everything else has changed with the company. I hate dealing with them now and they're the bane of my existence. I had SEVERAL regional reps outright lie to me this year.
I hate them.

From my experiences with Verizon as an internet provider, they're fantastic -- but all of their services just feel way too overpriced.

They really are. When I signed up for DSL service I just about grilled the sales rep, to the point that he transferred me to one of their techs because he did not know the answers to some of my questions. I asked whether they filter any ports for any reason, and they don't. I asked if they have any kind of bandwidth cap, and they don't. I asked if they would hassle me if I decided to run any servers of any kind on my Linux box, and they won't. I straight up asked them, "let's say that I totally saturate both the upstream and downstream bandwidth 24/7, would you throttle or cap or in any way interfere with this?**" and they said no. And you know what, they were honest and true to their word. Mind you, this is regular residential service, not a business plan.

Friends of mine who have Internet service through cable companies have not been nearly as satisfied. At least in my local area, the cable companies are much more eager to screw with users' traffic. They're also much less reliable in terms of outages, which almost never happen to me and have been promptly fixed the few times they did occur. I think too that the cable ISPs around here filter at least TCP port 25, possibly others. Further, while their potential maximum bandwidth is more than my DSL connection, they rarely (if ever) experience that maximum speed, presumably because of the shared nature of cable service. Anytime I have tested it, my DSL service has always been exactly the bandwidth that Verizon has agreed to provide, no more and no less.

I feel like I am getting my money's worth and I really cannot find anything to complain about. When I read negative story after negative story about Verizon Wireless, it amazes me that their wireless division is even the same company.

**I don't actually saturate my full bandwidth 24/7. That's not really the point. What matters to me is that I can do it if I feel like it without interference. At least in my case, when they say "unlimited" they really mean it.

But would they actually tell you the price? When I was looking for an ISP I couldn't get a quote for what my bill would exactly be, since "taxes" and "fees" apparently are unknowable in advance. One of my requirements when buying something is to know what I'm paying, and cable at least is able to fulfill this basic requirement (Service is also great, but that is likely to change since people are willing to pay so much for obsolete DSL connections that cable companies will match the competition by offering D

Honestly how angry can you be if you still have to censor the word fuck?

Parent wasn't censoring, that was globbing. It expresses all of the following:
Feedback you Verizon
Fetlock you Verizon
Flack you Verizon
Flapjack you Verizon
Flashback you Verizon
Fleck you Verizon
Flick you Verizon
Flintlock you Verizon
Flock you Verizon
Flyspeck you Verizon
Forelock you Verizon
Frock you Verizon
Fuck you Verizon
Fullback you Verizon
and more!!

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. And if Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would smack you Verizon.

If you need to push your product by paying another company to force your product to be used, I don't think that says very good things about your product. Moreover, it is going to make many people simply react negatively to being forced to use Bing. On the other hand, given the massive head start that Google has over Bing, it is understandable that Microsoft would try tactics like this. Presumably if they are still trying this sort of thing in two or three years that would indicate a much more serious problem. Honestly, having tried both Google and Bing I've found them to be close to the same quality. I prefer Google but primary for the interface.

Ultimately how bad this is depends on the terms of the deal. Is the search engine the default option on new devices, or is it the only option forced on existing customers who didn't know something like this could happen when they signed up? That sort of thing makes a big difference.

Either way, I think the real culprit here is Verizon. It's understandable that Microsoft or Google would want some kind of deal for search engine placement. We all know Google pays Mozilla for placement as the default engine. The problem is more about how little regard Verizon has for their own customers-- so little that they think it's perfectly appropriate to go in and screw with a customer's phone remotely.

Is the search engine the default option on new devices, or is it the only option forced on existing customers who didn't know something like this could happen when they signed up?

According to the summary, it was done to the writer's phone that had been using google; he found that google was no longer an allowed search engine and he had to use bing.

It does seem like this sort of arrogant restriction should be legal ground for abrogating the contract. It should also be additional evidence in the "Net Neutrality" debate, since it's a good example of how current internet providers are blocking net access to prevent you from dealing with companies that haven't paid them for access to customers.

I wonder if any Verizon customers are discussing a class-action suit yet...

Oh, right.

The government is going to solve all these issues.

HOW!?!?!

By issuing 30,000 pages of new regulations that define "neutrality"?

Guess who's going to write those regulations? The lawyers from the folks with money - AT&T, Verizon, Google, etc.

"Net neutrality" is just a pissing contest over who gets to squeeze consumers for using bandwidth. Thank you oh so much for playing your useful idiot part.

This is an example of the kind of reactive emotionalism that lowers the overall quality of discussion. I sometimes receive responses like this myself and it usually results in wasted effort spent correcting them. The responses are both AC and pseudonymous and the wasted effort is either mine or that of others. If they progress beyond a couple of posts, the corrections become more and more like flamebait as people start to lose patience with it.

It is a little on the suspicious side for anyone paying attention to see this sort of thing--essentially, they're saying that nobody uses their engine voluntarily so they have to pay to force people to use it. Kinda makes me wonder what's -wrong- with it.I've used Bing a couple times, mostly by accident because the corporate image only has IE available and forgetting to complete an address in the search bar brings you there. I didn't really like the 'feel' of it, but that could possibly be because of my n

As far as I can tell, their deals don't include blocking access to the other search sites. Verizon is making bing the only search site usable by Verizon customers. Google seems to merely pay for placement as the default server. My (up-to-date) copies of seamonkey and firefox default to google, but the search widget has a menu of other search sites, and I typing in the URLs of other search sites also works. Nothing is blocked.

So it's not at all the "same thing" as what the Verizon/Microsoft coalition has done.

The abovethecrowd.com article seems to confirm this. Google's nefarious plot has be based on positioning themself as the default "less than free" alternative, by giving kickbacks from their ad revenue to their partners. But so far they don't seem to have actually managed to restrict customers' access as Verizon is doing. They merely make their stuff available at a better price for everyone, to gain the "default" position.

The article goes into the related GPS navigation story in some detail. I saw a good example of google's approach a few days ago, when I needed to be at an event about 90 miles away shortly after local rush hour. I have a Garmin GPS gadget in my car, and I also had my T-Mobile G1 Android phone in my pocket. The Garmin gave me a route that the G1's google maps app told me had a serious traffic congestion. So I took a slightly longer alternate route that google said wasn't congested, and got there well before the estimated arrival time of either GPS gadget.

The interesting thing about this is that I've taken to pitting the G1 and the Garmin nav stuff against each other, out of interest in how they compare. The main problem with Garmin's GPS is that it doesn't have "live" net access to anything. Its maps are now incorrect for a couple of local areas due to recent new highway construction, and it would cost me $160 to "upgrade" my maps to the latest version. The G1 uses google maps, so it's constantly downloading the current maps from the Net, but its downside is that when I'm out of cell-tower range, it can't get the maps. In this case, though, it showed off the real strength of google's nav stuff: It gets current traffic reports from its traveling phones and can warn you when there are problems ahead. Most of the time, its warnings are even accurate. If Garmin and the other GPS vendors can't move onto the Net in the same way, they're going to be out of business soon. On that trip, I ended up ignoring the Garmin routing, and followed the G1's suggestions.

It should be noted that google isn't just supplying their nav software on Android "google" phones. My wife has an iPhone (which she loves), and it has the same google maps software. We've had a bit of fun comparing how google's stuff works on the two phones. There's no clear winner in that contest.

(And I expect that google will soon be pre-fetching maps over a larger area, as memory becomes cheaper and phones can store more maps. This will ameliorate the out-of-cell-contact problems a lot. They'll also probably figure out how to make their UI better, by copying things that the GPS companies have done right.;-)

If you need to push your product by paying another company to force your product to be used, I don't think that says very good things about your product.

I've got some friends that work for Microsoft, and a lot of their social media status updates are about Bing!. The way they're phrased, it's obvious that posting those statuses is "not required, but not discouraged". Astroturfing, paid shills, annoying television commercials, removal of choice, worse search results... these are a few of my least favorite Bing!s.

[...] the main lesson I take from this is the Blackberry is a poor choice if you want control of your own device.

If you look at most of Verizon's other phones, they all use the same user interface (look and feel, menus, etc). They also used to disable some bluetooth functionality (you couldn't transfer files, but you could use a headset), and they used to disable GPS functions for applications other than their "VZ Navigator" app.

It sounds to me like Verizon is a poor choice if you want control of your own device.

Then again, lots of carriers lock out some functionality. For example, AT&T hasn't given me the manual network selection option on any of my phones for years. It only appears when I'm outside the U.S.

I guess it's fair to say that all the service providers will screw us over, given the chance. Which is why I vastly prefer GSM networks to the others, since having a SIM card takes away the provider's ability to dictate which phone I'll use. Though then you still get screwed; if you don't take the free or discounted phone, you're effectively paying for your phone twice.

The Europeans did it right: all service providers use GSM, which creates a nice competitive market for SIM cards and gives consumers control

The appropriate way to ink this deal would have been to simply make Bing the default instead of actually removing the competitors. It would have been worth less money to Verizon, but far more in terms of customer loyalty.

Honestly -- did Microsoft learn nothing from the browser war? Its anti-trust lawsuits? Even if this sort of move is not technically illegal, they're sure to gain more enemies than friends in the tech community. I was never keen on the blackberry, but the sliver of interest I had in the product is now gone.

Anger at BB for this? I have no interest in owning a BB either personally, but if I was a VZ customer, I'd be pissed at VZ - not MS or BB. MS is simply trying to market a turd, and BB is simply BB. VZ is the one that crossed the lines, imo.

Honestly -- did Microsoft learn nothing from the browser war? Its anti-trust lawsuits? Even if this sort of move is not technically illegal, they're sure to gain more enemies than friends in the tech community. I was never keen on the blackberry, but the sliver of interest I had in the product is now gone.

What Microsoft learned is that the general public has an extremely short memory and will continue to assume good-faith on the part of companies who have given every reason to doubt that. It's similar to what politicians learned a long time ago.

It isn't a boycott unless paying customers leave. Every time I see an article like this there are always a slew of people who say "I'm not a customer of XXX, and I certainly never will be now!" I think Verizon is probably yawning right now. For a boycott to work, people who were a source of income to the company need to CEASE being that source of income. Otherwise it's just mental masturbation. The people who are actually customers always seem to be able to find an excuse not to take action. Personal conven

Wow, AT&T with it's lock-in of the iPhone, now Verizon with a lock-in to Bing. Can it be that this is the only way that Microsoft can get people to use Bing?

I tried Bing, gave it a fair shake and ended up back with Google. To have my choices taken away by my phone carrier in a backroom deal between Microsoft and Verizon would get me looking for a new carrier.

Of course, Microsoft has been in this business for a long time so they can give lessons to Verizon.

Yeah, but the difference seems to be between usability and the total lack of. While I would like an open device, I would also like something reliable. For example, the last time I checked OpenMoko, calls still wouldn't work all the time. Its kinda important for me that my OS doesn't randomly not answer calls or receive text messages.

Really, even though its closed, Android is a nice alternative. It is stable, has lots of application support, lots of phones and most are easily rooted to do whatever with.

I have a OpenMoko as well. It's all very well putting your money where your mouth is but how about the makers of OpenMoko actually finishing the software so the thing will run. The version that was sold had a hardware bug that requires fixing. There has never been a solid version of the software. The Android phones at least actually delivered on being a phone.

This demonstrates exactly why the phone network provider has to be decoupled from the cell phone vendor. What is the subtext of this? That the consumers are nothing more than serfs for the phone network providers to buy and sell as they please. That's the point. You have NO choice with Verizon. It's not YOUR phone it's THEIR phone.

Microsoft couldn't pay enough people to use exclusively bing *and* keep their word, so why bother with the common citizen and instead go directly to the phone network? After all, the phone network is the only the thing that matters. Who gives a F*** about you and me and what *we* want? Certainly not verizon with this maneuver. The worst part? I don't think it has even occurred to the management at verizon how deeply offensive this maneuver is. To FORCIBLY lock people into 1 choice of search engine?!?! WTF? What are they smoking?!?!

I think it's time that Congress and the President (who's a blackberry customer) is informed of what exactly verizon thinks of their freedom of choice. Talk about Dumb Ass Maneuver!

Easy as that. Unless you are already past the point when there are only these mega corporations (Verizon + AT&T) selling you what ever bigger companies want.

Buy Nokia:) (The cheapest ones, you don't get angry when destroy the damn thing next friday when you're drunk! You don't really need all those fancy features, you just want to make a call, send an sms and every phone can run Opera Mini)

Unfortunately, here's yet another reason to MOVE MY PHONES AWAY FROM VERIZON. Recently, we found out that Verizon was charging for data (1mb of data transfer) when I accidentally hit the "Get it now" key that is hard-coded, pre-programmed, into my phone - without any labeling and without any option to repurpose the keystroke.

This seems to come on top of everything else as yet another reason to choose another vendor - Google, hopefully! - and not Verizon.

After reading several Blackberry message board posts from Verizon users that got Binged, I kept checking for it every time I did a reboot or battery pull. After one reboot, I noticed a new icon with the Bing logo. I clicked it. It said it wanted to change my default and had the "I Agree" and "I Disagree" choices. I clicked "I Disagree" and then deleted the Bing icon. I'm a Verizon Blackberry user with Google as my default search. Bing doesn't even appear on the menu.

I have a BlackBerry Storm through Verizon, and the other day I noticed the Bing icon show up on my screen, which I thought was strange, but seeing as how I'm sort of generally disenchanted with Google these days, I didn't really care. However, if you open up the actual browser app instead of clicking the new icon, then you can still search via Google by default in there without any disruption.

Verizon didn't remove search choice, and they aren't forcing Bing, they just stuck an extra icon on the phone. Delete it and move on. Seriously.

The move is part of the five-year search and advertising deal Verizon signed with Microsoft in January for a rumored $500m.

Reminds me of my dad saying someone was so ugly you had to hang a pork chop around their neck to find them a date. If Microsoft search is so great, why do they have pay Verizon a half-billion dollars to be their friend?

There was probably a funnier way to say that, but I think the point is made. Here we have this situation that appears again and again. Businesses who collect our money in giant leaf-piles of money somehow feel it's not enough and end up selling their customers... their trust, their personal data and personality information and habits and preferences... it sickens me but it stopped surprising me long ago.

I dumped Verizon over 5 years ago when they partnered with M$ for "myvzw". One day I went to log into the portal (which worked fine from a mobile phone so it didn't require too many html capabilities) and it said I was on an incompatible browser and needed to upgrade. The problem was that I was on a SPARC. I'd been using a SPARC with Netscape for years with no trouble and then suddenly they said I needed exploder. AT&T has better phones anyway.
I recently dumped Netflix because they require Silverlight to view movies on-line. It's just a coincidence that the CEO of Netflix sits on the M$ board of directors...
People who say Microsoft has changed its ways and is no longer anti-competitive just aren't looking in the right places.

It would be nice for Verizon and Sprint to use R-UIM cards. From what I know, Chinese CDMA providers use these on a widespread basis. It saves them money over time because a user can upgrade devices without needing to have the cellular provider need to enter the device's IMEI number at their end.

I haven't heard anything good about Verizon Wireless that made me want to do business with them in a very long time. They seem to be competing with themselves to see how much bad press they can drum up in the shortest possible time. What a sharp contrast to my personal experience with their DSL service, which has been amazingly hassle-free (no bandwidth caps, no ports filtered, no restrictions on running servers, etc). It's a shame because this one division seems hell-bent on giving a bad name to the entire company. This deal with Microsoft may be for $500 million, but I wonder what that figure would be if you adjusted for ill will and lost sales from potential customers who see this kind of thing and decide to go elsewhere.

Unfortunately, they aren't going to lose much in the way of sales. As someone else pointed out a few replies back, their network is probably the best in the US right now. I used to use Verizon years ago, but dropped them for T-Mobile because their coverage was poor. Suddenly, Verizon went on a network-upgrading binge, T-Mobile's network took a nosedive, and I found myself back at Verizon because I desperately needed a phone that could actually make calls when I needed it to.

Unfortunately, they aren't going to lose much in the way of sales. As someone else pointed out a few replies back, their network is probably the best in the US right now...

I happily use TMo, who has coverage (or at least roaming I dont seem to pay for) in every area I need them.

If one looks at their coverage map here:
Verizon [verizonwireless.com]

And enters Ticonderoga, NY in the City/State field, one will notice that they have... ummm... something. I dont know what. There is no key on their map that indicates what blue with white lines through it means. The same goes for Rt9N and the outskirts of Port Henry.

Well, I know what blue with white lines means (even though there is a Verizon store there). It means NO coverage... even though one would suspect from the map that it means 3G.

As a matter of fact, if you zoom out, it shows the coverage as blue - which is on their map key.

Gee, that's an outright lie. I wonder how many other areas are similarly mis-marked. Ticonderoga and Port Henry dont have 3G, EDGE, or even just basic phone coverage from Verizon. We (the Star Trek Phase 2 Team) has even made some "funny" videos about it that are on YouTube (well, "we" is our sound engineer Ralph Miller mostly, with a couple of us participating in some of them).

When we called them asking if or when they'd have it (since it is marked as they do on their map), they told us they dont, wont and never plan on as there is no demand for coverage up there. Four years later, and calls as recently as this past fall, and their maps are still incorrect.

Regardless, I am sure Verizon has better coverage in many areas than TMo, but for me, TMo's coverage is all I need for where I travel, and their customer service (regardless of how it may or may not be able to be improved) is light years above Verizon's - including helping me with phone/connectivity issues with "unapproved" and "untested" phones - as well as with my "tested/approved" G1 that I bought second hand on eBay.

Apple and AT&T have been only allowing one set of search providers, stores, Web browsers, and API. And people flock to their products.

Someone forces their devices to do the same thing, people scream bloody murder.

Why? Because people *had* the choice before, and it was taken away from them. With Apple, you know you will be using Safari or nothing, iTMS or nothing, Apple App store or nothing, and AT&T (in the US) or nothing. The deal with this device is that people didn't sign up knowing that their choices of search providers would be taken away.

If it was true capitalism there would be competition because there wouldn't be government regulations/payouts that helped Verizon and MS in the first place. If it wasn't for the government intentionally creating monopolies with the first AT&T then breaking up the artificial monopoly, we wouldn't have had Verizion in the first place.

Your conjecture is based on the premise that a monopoly wouldn't have formed anyways.The only problem with that theory is that AT&T/Bell was already a monopoly by the time the Gov't got around to regulating them as one (1934).Unregulated markets tend towards consolidation, cartels & oligopolies.

Your conjecture is based on the premise that a monopoly wouldn't have formed anyways.

A monopoly may have formed, but a monopoly was formed in 1934, it would have surely would have broken up before the 1980s had it been a truly natural monopoly. Changing technologies and the shortcomings of AT&T would have forced at least local competition in high-density metropolitan areas almost certainly.

No, it's not capitalism but don't go dragging the big bad government scarecrow in here.

The thing about capitalism is it leads - inherently - to exactly the sort of situation you seem to think requires a government to create. When the first company goes around laying phone lines, or cable lines, or train tracks, or anything requiring a large initial investment in infrastructure, you usually get something known as a "natural monopoly". When Ma Bell put in their phone lines, it seems reasonable to think that another company could just put in a duplicate set of phone lines - obviously, AT&T has no incentive to share theirs. Unfortunately, this never happens. While you're trying to pay off your entirely redundant infrastructure, the incumbent will just undercut you.

Then, with networks connecting people, you have to worry about the network effect. If everybody (or almost everybody) uses AT&T, and they won't allow your new startup to connect to their network - well, you're screwed before you begin.

The situation is the same with cellphone market. The tendency is for one company to do it all.

Food for thought: Without government intervention, you'd still have Ma Bell but you wouldn't be able to use your own phone, or a modem. There wouldn't be any other cell companies - it'd all be Bell, because they would just prevent interconnection. Want a cellphone, and want to talk to people on landlines? Gotta be Bell.

Please, if you're going to spout off about the evils of government, at least be right. There's plenty of things to be annoyed at the government about, but regulation of natural monopolies is not one of them (unless, of course, you run a natural monopoly...)